Despite its title, in the more than half of the article you are pointing out (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4080137/China-chips-Bomb-or-just-a-lot-of-firecrackers-) they talk about how things are not so bad and that they are looking up. Overall it is still very positive despite the eventual admission years after the fact. All I am saying is that there is a general bias, a general narrative in all of these stories that is part of the pop zeitgeist, "Engineering in America is finished and everything is moving to China". I am sorry but I do not swallow that bias without first questioning whether I agree with it and see it myself.

Despite its title, in the more than half of the article you are pointing out (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4080137/China-chips-Bomb-or-just-a-lot-of-firecrackers-) they talk about how things are not so bad and that they are looking up. Overall it is still very positive despite the eventual admission years after the fact. All I am saying is that there is a general bias, a general narrative in all of these stories that is part of the pop zeitgeist, "Engineering in America is finished and everything is moving to China". I am sorry but I do not swallow that bias without first questioning whether I agree with it and see it myself.

@BLinder
You may be right about the established crystal/ivory tower(s) of design expertise collapsing in next five to ten years.
But why would that result in a flat landscape?
The equipment making all goes on in China. Much of the chipmaking is done in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and more will be done in China. Surely the expert knowledge will continue to migrate to, and develop in, China and southeast Asia?
Or is there another prognosis?

@BLinder
You may be right about the established crystal/ivory tower(s) of design expertise collapsing in next five to ten years.
But why would that result in a flat landscape?
The equipment making all goes on in China. Much of the chipmaking is done in Taiwan, Korea, Japan and more will be done in China. Surely the expert knowledge will continue to migrate to, and develop in, China and southeast Asia?
Or is there another prognosis?

Within any economic analysis of product development in the USA is the design resource expense which is substantial. Designers ultimately take years to develop their skill set but with time China teams will have the same. So the way one cultivates that is create more design efforts. I have been in many executive meetings where the topic is how do we end the monopoly of design expense in the USA, well that is the next round of outsourcing. I would expect the crystal towner of design to topple in the next 5 to 10 years in the USA, and become flat as the world equalizes expenses for design value across the globe.

Within any economic analysis of product development in the USA is the design resource expense which is substantial. Designers ultimately take years to develop their skill set but with time China teams will have the same. So the way one cultivates that is create more design efforts. I have been in many executive meetings where the topic is how do we end the monopoly of design expense in the USA, well that is the next round of outsourcing. I would expect the crystal towner of design to topple in the next 5 to 10 years in the USA, and become flat as the world equalizes expenses for design value across the globe.

I think the story of 'US' being the hub of innovation is running longer than any soap. It might have been true in early days when it took some time for the 'knowledge' to cross the oceans and there was an upfront 'lead time'. Now in the 'internet era', how can anyone say that 'innovations' can happen ONLY in US and not in Europe or Asia? It actually depends very much on whom the innovation depends on. It is difficult, to put it mildly, for US companies to innovate on what the Chinese might queue up in the night to buy, forget just like or feel good-to-have.

I think the story of 'US' being the hub of innovation is running longer than any soap. It might have been true in early days when it took some time for the 'knowledge' to cross the oceans and there was an upfront 'lead time'. Now in the 'internet era', how can anyone say that 'innovations' can happen ONLY in US and not in Europe or Asia? It actually depends very much on whom the innovation depends on. It is difficult, to put it mildly, for US companies to innovate on what the Chinese might queue up in the night to buy, forget just like or feel good-to-have.

The first round of investment in Chinese fabless companies was detailed in the following EE Times' story:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4080137/China-chips-Bomb-or-just-a-lot-of-firecrackers-

The first round of investment in Chinese fabless companies was detailed in the following EE Times' story:
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4080137/China-chips-Bomb-or-just-a-lot-of-firecrackers-

In conjunction with unveiling of EE Times’ Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. One of Silicon Valley's great contributions to the world has been the demonstration of how the application of entrepreneurship and venture capital to electronics and semiconductor hardware can create wealth with developments in semiconductors, displays, design automation, MEMS and across the breadth of hardware developments. But in recent years concerns have been raised that traditional venture capital has turned its back on hardware-related startups in favor of software and Internet applications and services. Panelists from incubators join Peter Clarke in debate.